Zappaz MCP Server

send_video_message

Send a video to a WhatsApp number or group through Zappaz API, with optional caption, mentions, GIF playback, and quoted reply.

Instructions

Envia uma mensagem de vídeo atraves da Zappaz API

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "send_video_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only restates the purpose. It says nothing about authorization needs, delivery behavior, retry semantics, or what happens on failure for a mutation-style send operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no padding — appropriately sized for the one line it contains, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it earns only a middling score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a nested 7-field data object, the description is too thin. An agent gets no help on quoting, mentions, gifPlayback, or source format, leaving key calling decisions entirely to the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage for the top-level parameter list is 0%: the single 'data' wrapper has no description. The nested fields happen to be documented in the schema, but the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail of its own, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'Envia' plus resource 'mensagem de vídeo' clearly states what the tool does, and 'video' distinguishes it from the send_text/send_image/send_audio siblings by resource type. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or scope conditions, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of the sibling send_* tools the agent should choose between. The agent must infer selection purely from the resource word 'vídeo'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.